The DCCC commercial and results for Democrats

[wyldwolf]

The DCCC commercial? The one that sat on the DCCC site for two months virtually unnoticed until the FAUX GOP outrage?

Bill Burton, the Democratic campaign committee's spokesman, said the Republican criticism had boosted traffic for the short video. Until Thursday, only about 1 percent of visitors to the campaign committee had bothered to watch.

But that changed with the GOP complaints, he said, with "tens of thousands" of people clicking on the ad on Thursday. And thousands of them signed up to either contribute or volunteer for the Democratic campaign, he added.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/nw_washington/article/0,1891,TRN_5707_4844383,00.html

Remember, virtually unnoticed for two months... then tens of thousands of clicks and thousands of new volunteers and contributions...

[AndyA]

1. One wonders why the DCCC took it down. If it was raising money

and encouraging new volunteers to sign up, those are all good things for the DCCC. Bad for the GOP.

Of course the GOP is going to express outrage. If the RNC had a similar ad, and the Dems raised hell about it, do you think they'd take it down to appease the Dems? No way in hell!

So why are we bowing down to them? The truth must be told, like it or not people, OUR TROOPS ARE DYING IN A WAR BASED ON LIES FROM THE GOP. They come home in flag-draped coffins. It's a fact. Not seeing the coffins doesn't change the facts. Grow up, America. Wise up, America. Open your eyes and see what the GOP is doing to our country.

[wyldwolf]

2. I rather like what another DUer said

They felt it was better to take it down than cause problems for Democratic candidates in southern, pro-military districts.

[atreides1]

4. "...pro-military districts."

So, being pro-military means you like seeing troops go off to war, but you don't want to see the results of that war?

[wyldwolf]

5. in GOP leaning districts, yeah, that about covers it.

The same reasoning Bush used initially when he wouldn't let coffins be shown.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

11. What works for some regions doesn't work for others

We have got to stop assuming that the same strategy will work across the country

[SaveElmer]

3. You ask...

"...do you think they'd take it down to appease the Dems? No way in hell!"

The answer is simple, and related to the demographics of each party. Democrats are more diverse, with candidates running in several southern, pro-military districts, for whom this could be a big issue.

How many moderate Republicans are there? And how much power do they have? Almost none. There is no sector of the Republican Party they would have to worry about.

Democrats are not trying to appease all Republicans, they are trying to diffuse and issue that could cause harm for several Democratic candidates...and I suspect they knew they would eventually have to take this down.

The strategy worked...the ad was up there for quite some time, and now everyone is seeing it!

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. Tens of thousands are preached to by the choir, meanwhile

A NATION remembers Democrats cutting N running

and

1 - in 10 DUers agrees with the cut N run Strategy

[wyldwolf]

8. the DCCC gets tens of thousands of clicks and thousands of donations and..

..volunteers, yet... LincolnMcGrath relies on a DU poll to make a point.

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Dick Durbin's video apology got a ton of airplay also.

Worked out well for him didn't it?

You were expecting the DCCC spokesman to say web traffic and donations went down?

[wyldwolf]

10. really?

Show me proof of that.

[LincolnMcGrath]

12. First set the criterion that will satisfy you.

[wyldwolf]

13. show us that Durbin's video got a TON of airplay

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Once again this time slower and in large type.

Set the criterion for proof that will eliminate whining

[wyldwolf]

18. Once again this time slower and in large type.

Prove the Durbin video has gotten TONS of airplay.

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. What criterion will satisfy you? Page views, Website meters, MSM,

the Congressional record, C - span views, print media mentions,what?

Pick a few.

Here we go again with you running from your original OP.

[wyldwolf]

26. yes. Whatever adds up to a TON.

[LincolnMcGrath]

35. Be more specific.

I stated it got tons of airplay. You asked for proof. For like the umteeth time, pick a few criterion that you will accept.

[wyldwolf]

37. I pick all the critiria you mentioned, as long as it adds up to a TON

[LincolnMcGrath]

39. So there is no amount you will settle for?

Thats what you are really saying isn't it? Perhaps, That the video coverage in the evening news of Dick Durbin's tearful apology is just some leftist conspiracy.

[wyldwolf]

40. yes. I will settle for a TON

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. In other words nothing will satisfy you.

Did you notice the number of DUers checking in here saying they had never heard of the Durbin affair?

[wyldwolf]

44. did you notice the amount saying they HAD heard of it?

C'mon.

Give me download/click numbers, network ratings at the exact moment of the incident. You know, TONS.

[LincolnMcGrath]

47. Network rating at the exact moment of the incident?

Are you admitting the Durbin Apology was a big enough story to headline the evening news?

[wyldwolf]

50. yes. I mean, if it got TONS of airplay as you state, then network news...

...must surely figure into that TON of airplay. So the ratings (that means amount of people watching) during the quarter hour the bit was broadcast.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. This is rich.

[wyldwolf]

54. yes it is.

TONS?

[LincolnMcGrath]

56. "Dick Durbin's video apology got a ton of airplay also."

Is that a false staement in your opinion?

[wyldwolf]

57. I'm sure you believe it

but you've yet to show how it is so.

[LincolnMcGrath]

58. That was a non - answer. Is it a false statement or not?

[wyldwolf]

59. It's whatever you want it to be

Network coverage, cable coverage, video downloads. You know. TONS. I'm sure you have screenshots that prove the "TONS" of airplay claim, and you're waiting for the right time to roll it out.

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. Is it a false statement or not?

Seems simple enough.

[wyldwolf]

62. It's whatever you want it to be

[LincolnMcGrath]

60. You can get ratings if you want to.

ABC's World News Tonight
Good Morning America
NBC's Today

All aired stories on the tearful apology.

[wyldwolf]

63. well, thats a start! Now, show us links and ratings that add up to "TONS.

...or "TON"

[LincolnMcGrath]

64. TONS is your requirement, not mine.

If Senator Mc Cain discussing the matter on "Press the Meat" doesn't meet your criteria, I'm not sure what will.

[wyldwolf]

65. but a TON is what you said

Are you officially flip flopping?

[LincolnMcGrath]

66. I said "tons of coverage." You on the other hand, refuse to

agree or disagree with that statement.

Why is that. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

67. actually you said "ton of airplay"

So show us how much airplay = a TON? Links, sources, etc.

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. Is it a false statement or not?

I tire of this game of yours.

[wyldwolf]

69. I'd have to see the numbers you have that constitute a "ton"

[LincolnMcGrath]

70. Somehow I doubt that.

Carry on.

[wyldwolf]

72. OK. Provide the Neilsons and we'll see

I promise I'll allow for at least half a ton.

[LincolnMcGrath]

73. The fact that there are Neilsons to examine prove the story got a ton of

airplay.

Hello?


Carry on

[wyldwolf]

74. Are there Neilsons?

Neilsons would be the tool to measure the TON, so I'm assuming you have the numbers? Or screenshots from each newscast?

[SaveElmer]

14. What harm has it done him...

Hell I'd completely forgotten about that till you mentioned it. Probably not on voters minds!

[wyldwolf]

19. haven't you figured out McGrath's schtick yet?

With him, the Democrats' glass is half empty. Anyone who says it is half full is playing into the hands of the DLC.

[LincolnMcGrath]

20. So you think he could win the presidency after that tear jerking video?

I don't think so.

As far as harm measurements go, hard to say.

I've met with DD twice, once before and once after the incident. The second time nearly everyone in the room applauded when he was chastised for apologizing. and as I mentioned at least once today, the term "Pulling a Durbin" didn't invent itself, nor did I first hear it from a leftist. (Or whatever the hate-phrase of the day is)

[wyldwolf]

22. LOL!

Right! Bet you have a screen shot of that meeting. There was a TON of people there, right?

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Are you calling me a liar? Come right out and do it!

[wyldwolf]

28. calling someone a liar is against DU rules

however, as the rules do permit, void of any proof of your claim and based on your loathing of Democrats, the veracity of it is very questionable. Unless you have a screenshot!

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. So have the courage to say it.

[wyldwolf]

30. OK

It.

Hmmm. That didn't take much courage.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. pathetic

sad as well

Have the courage to say that I am not involved locally

[wyldwolf]

34. You are? I wouldn't go that far.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. I didn't think you had the courage necessary

I'm sorry that you painted yourself into this corner.

[wyldwolf]

38. Well, I guess I prove you wrong

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. Don't hold back on your insinuation in post #22 Come right out with it.

Your reason for not doing so can only be attributed to fear of looking silly at this point.



Don't hold back. Say it if you feel so strongly

[wyldwolf]

45. ok

as the rules of DU permit, void of any proof of your claim and based on your loathing of Democrats, the veracity of your claim is very questionable. Unless you have a screenshot! Or a note from your mommy.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. Stop hiding behind the rules. They do not forbid opinion.

[wyldwolf]

51. but they forbid calling someone a liar. So here is my opinion again

as the rules of DU permit, void of any proof of your claim and based on your loathing of Democrats, the veracity of your claim is very questionable. Unless you have a screenshot! Or a note from your mommy.

[LincolnMcGrath]

31. So have the courage to say it.

It is not against the rules to be wrong and you damn well know it.

It is real simple, go in the record stating that I am not involved locally, districtwide, and statewide.

Then I will prove you wrong.

You make the call.

[wyldwolf]

33. ok

It.

Hmmm... No, quite easy. Didn't take much courage to say it at all.

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. Don't hold back on your insinuation in post #22 Come right out with it.

Show some courage, you made the insinuation.

GO for it.

[wyldwolf]

46. ok

as the rules of DU permit, void of any proof of your claim and based on your loathing of Democrats, the veracity of your claim is very questionable. Unless you have a screenshot! Or a note from your mommy.

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. Stop hiding behind the rules. They do not forbid opinion.

[wyldwolf]

52. but they forbid calling someone a liar. Here is my opinion again

as the rules of DU permit, void of any proof of your claim and based on your loathing of Democrats, the veracity of your claim is very questionable. Unless you have a screenshot! Or a note from your mommy.

[SaveElmer]

23. Oh I don't know...

Nixon came back after his pathetic performance after losing the California Governor's race "... you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" Four years later he is President.

Seems pretty minor frankly. I have never heard the term you used (not saying you didn't hear it elsewhere), but I am pretty involved and have never once heard it.

I expect that if Durbin (A great Senator IMO) ever did run for President the Pubs might try and make it an issue, but I suspect it wouldn't get much traction!

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. Fair Enough

And I agree that DD is a great Senator! He was mine for years before I hopped the river.

[LynneSin]

15. That tends to be the norm around here

We had people believing that Lamont was a sure shot to win because of an online poll. Hell I believed Howard Dean was going to be our next president because of all the online polls & buzz.

But I keep forget that we're probably 1% of 1% of the actually voters out there for the democratic party. And just because we think it was bad for the DCCC to remove it doesn't mean we're right.

I think it was a good overall strategy - it played it's course got some feedback, new volunteers and circulating around the internet. But believe it our not, there are people in this world who don't like the idea of exploting the dead for ones benefit - it was the right thing for the democrats to take the video down

[SaveElmer]

17. I thought the ad was ok...

Because none of the deceased soldiers was identified...but I can see where some might be concerned.

It certainly wasn't worth the negative coverage to keep it up there..could cause problems for Democrats running in southern districts.

[wyldwolf]

21. not just an online poll, but a DU poll

with about 60 respondants.

[wyldwolf]

71. and one that...

LincolnMcGrath keeps kicking. Guess we'll see it soon on PollingReport.com! LOL!

[LittleClarkie]

55. So maybe it was just due for taking down anyway?

Eh, like I've said before, it appears to have done it's job. Good for it.